dear brick boarders

i am thinking of purchasing a 1979 242GT,is there any features that would not be in my stock 1980 244GL. would it be a worthy by or should i just stick with my 1980 244GL

thanks in advance

Hallgm

Don't hesitate! If you can find one that's solid and is a good runner, you'll be happy with the purchase. I had one up until two years ago, and it was the most reliable car I ever had. I also love the look. The color combo fantastic IMHO. Go for it!

Rob

See my old GT at http://photos.yahoo.com/robsvolvos

Since no one actually answered the question, '79 is the best year for the GT and it will have (stock):
R-sport front springs
upper strut plates
upper strut braces
DeCarbon struts
21 mm front sway bar
23 mm rear sway bar
It will not have full rear wheel well depressions for the spare tire and tools Easy to not see, when comparing to any other 240.

I bought a '79 brand new - in fact it was the only car I have ever bought new. It was a sensation then, and produced a lot of attention, all positive, from other drivers, and especially other Volvo people. The Saab was and continues to be viewed as a kind of wierd and unusual car here in Canada, and people who own them are viewed the same.
I thrashed that car for two years and the only fault it had was a rattly shift lever, and a misaligned driveshaft which was corrected before it went out of warranty. It was fast, smooth, quiet, and a blast to drive. I have never driven another 240 like it. The GLT's I have owned were all nice cars, but they did not feel like that '79.

Many people seem to love this car, and if you manage to find a nice one it sure has some interesting features to make it stand out among the other cars in the 200-series.

Personally though, I find it a bit amusing that the GT is such a popular car today, considering the circumstances around its introduction. Please remember that in Sweden, it was (and is) a fierce and competitive struggle between the Volvo camp and the SAAB camp. Up to the late '70s, Volvo was generally considered the big and powerful car of the two makes, even if SAAB had had some rallying success. Then SAAB introduced the 99 Turbo in 1977. It was a sensation. Here in Scandinavia, every boy no matter age wanted one. Badly. With the SAAB Turbo, you could have a family car and a racer all-in-one. Volvo had effectively been degraded to second place in terms of must-have.

The 1978 242 GT was Volvo's reply. As a counter attack it was at the time considered a weak one, though. What they did, basically, was to put together rather stock parts from the shelf in a hurry, and add a few nice decals. The first year they put in an H cam for performance, but with the resulting rough idle and weak low end torque - and high emissions - it was later replaced by the K. (The US cars might have been different.)

It was meant at the time to work as an intermediate model to satisfy this particular customer segment until they could launch their own turbo-powered car. Which they did in 1981, and the GT was consequently discontinued.

I do not by any means mean to show disrespect with the words above. Many people love this car with good reason, and it is considered to have the best stock chassis set-up of any 200 series car ever made. As I am old enough to remember the model's improvised and hurried birth though, I am slightly amused by the status it has got as the years have passed.

You might say that Volvo got the last word, I guess.

Erling.
--
My 240 Page

I think the fascination with the (1979) 242 GT comes mostly from the Americans on the board. We here in the States never got the high-performance, really aggressive engines that were available in many of the other markets in the world. The turbo line was available for only four years, as well, before they were migrated to the 700s.

Thus, the one shortcoming of the GT--the absence of a truly powerful engine--is a phenomenon that we Americans have come to accept simply as an aspect of ALL 240s. There *are* no much-superior alternatives to the underpowered B21, except for getting a turbo. So, we love the suspension upgrades and ignore the engine situation, and suddenly you've got a dedicated cult following.

At least, that's my theory on this whole situation. I'm guessing things are much different in markets like Sweden where any Volvo you could possibly want was available.
--
'89 244 GL -- 108,099 miles (see profile for info on car)

You lucky guy if you've got a chance to buy one with no rust.
Rodney

The 242GT was one of the best and most reliable models Volvo made.
IF you can find one that's not all rusted out in its floors, lower rocker panels, and rear fenders, you've got a great car.
The performance was never amazing since US models had to make do with the same B21 engine as all 240 models, but they sure do handle well. Supposedly the 79 had the most aggressive handling package of the production run.

Look for wiring harness problems (surely addressed by now??) and possible difficulties with the early style taillights- otherwise few worries with these models.
--
Rob Bareiss, New London CT ::: '87 244DL/M47- 234K, '82 245T/M46-182K, '84 242DL/AW70-100K, '89 244DL/AW70- 212K and I miss my: 86 244DL 215K, 87 244DL 239K, 88 744GLE 233K, 88 244GL 147K, 91 244 183K